20 Kislev 5781 Pesachim Daf 15 Dec. 6, 2020

Daf Notes is currently being dedicated to the neshamah of Tzvi Gershon Ben Yoel (Harvey Felsen) o”h May the studying of the Daf Notes be a zechus for his neshamah and may his soul find peace in Gan Eden and be bound up in the Bond of life

Said Rish Lakish in Bar Kappara's name: our treats here it is [defiling] with [one's own] hands? — Rather it is of an av hatumah according to Scripture and a velad this [ruling of] Rabbi Yehoshua. For we learned: If a cask of hatumah according to Scripture; and what does ‘from [wine of tahor] in the upper part is broken,5 while their words’ mean? From the words of Rabbi Eliezer and [in] the lower part there is tamei chullin. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua.1 Which [teaching of] Rabbi Yehoshua? Rabbi Yehoshua agree that if a reviis of it can be saved in Shall we say, the following [teaching of] Rabbi Yehoshua? purity, one must save it. But if not, Rabbi Eliezer ruled: Let For we learned: In the case of a cask of terumah wherein it descend and become tamei, yet let him not make it a doubt of tumah is born,2 — Rabbi Eliezer said: If it is lying tamei with [his own] hands: Rabbi Yehoshua said: He may in an exposed place it must be laid in a hidden place, and even make it tamei with his own hands.6 If so, [instead of] if it was uncovered, it must be covered.3 Rabbi Yehoshua this [phrase] ‘from their words,’ he should state, ‘from his said: If it is lying in a hidden place, one may lay it in an words’? — This is what he means: From the controversy exposed place, and if it is covered it may be uncovered!4 - of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua we learn [etc.]’ — How compare: there it is mere indirect action, whereas This may be proved too, because he states [further]: Rabbi

1 Thus Rabbi Meir does not refer to the Mishnah at all but to the 4 I.e., since a doubt has arisen you are no longer bound to rulings of some other Sages. Strictly speaking therefore this protect it and may even place it where the risk of contamination Mishnah is irrelevant in its present position, but it is included is greater than at present. Thus Rabbi Yehoshua holds that since because the subject of burning tamei together with tahor is it is only fit for lighting one may cause it to become tamei, and dealt with there. this furnishes the basis for Rabbi Meir's analogy. 2 E.g., if there is a doubt whether a tamei person touched it. 5 And its contents are running down into the lower part of the 3 In spite of the doubt one must still protect it from certain vat. tumah. Their dispute centers on a verse that states vaani hineh 6 If the tahor terumah runs into the chullin, it becomes tamei nasati lecho es mishmeres terumosai, Behold! I have given you too, and then the mixture is forbidden to Kohanim and lay the safeguard of My Terumos. Rabbi Eliezer maintains that the Israelite alike, unless there is one hundred times as much chullin plural tense of Terumos indicates that there are two categories as terumah. In the present case only tamei vessels are ready at of terumah that must be safeguarded. There is terumah that is hand to catch the terumah, which would save the chullin below. tahor that must be safeguarded from becoming tamei, and Both agree that if there is time to go, procure tahor vessels and there is terumah that is questionable if it contracted tumah that save at least a reviis of the terumah, this must be done, though must be safeguarded. If the terumah that is in question was in in the meantime some terumah will descend and render all the an exposed area, one should place it in a safe area, and if it was chullin forbidden. But where there is no time to save even a uncovered, one should cover it. Rabbi Yehoshua, however, reviis, we have a controversy. Rabbi Eliezer holds that even so it maintains that although the word terumosai is read in the plural must be permitted to descend, though it will thereby become tense, the word is written without the letter vav after the letter tamei in any case, rather than that we should deliberately make mem, thus it is written in the singular tense. According to Rabbi it tamei by catching it in tamei vessels. But Rabbi Yehoshua Yehoshua, only one category of terumah, the terumah this is maintains that since it will all become tamei in any case, we may certainly tahor must be safeguarded, but terumah that is make it tamei ourselves, in order to save the chullin below. possibly tamei need not be safeguarded. Rabbi Meir's ruling in the Mishnah is based on Rabbi Yehoshua's. - 1 -

Visit us on the web at dafnotes.com or email us at [email protected] to subscribe © Rabbi Avrohom Adler L’zecher Nishmas HaRav Raphael Dov ben HaRav Yosef Yechezkel Marcus O”H l

Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua agree [etc.].7 This proves it. burned) cannot be burned together.9 Bais Hillel, however, And thus said Rav Nachman in Rabbah bar Avuha's name maintains that since piggul and nossar are tamei [too]: our Mishnah refers to an av hatumah according to rabbinically, they can be burned together.10 Now if you Scripture and a velad hatumah according to Scripture, and think that Rabbi Meir argues from the words of Rabbi what does ‘from their words’ mean? From the words of Yehoshua, why does Rabbi Yosi answer him from [the Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. view] of Rabbi Chanina, the of the Kohanim? — Said Rav Nachman to him: Rabbi Yosi did not comprehend his Rava raised an objection to Rav Nachman: Rabbi Yosi said [Rabbi Meir's] reasoning, for he thought [that] Rabbi Meir [to Rabbi Meir]: The conclusion is not similar to the was arguing from Rabbi Chanina, the Segan of the premise. For when our Masters testified, about what did Kohanim, thereupon he said to him, I state [this law by they testify? If about flesh which was made tamei through deduction] from Rabbi Yehoshua. — But he answered him: a velad hatumah, that we burn it together with flesh which Even on Rabbi Yehoshua's [view] this is no true analogy, was made tamei through an av hatumah, [then] this is for Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua admit that one must tamei and that is tamei! If about oil which was rendered burn this separately and that separately. Yet why is this unfit by a tevul yom, that it is lit in a lamp which was made not a [true] analogy. Surely it is a perfect analogy?11 — tamei by one tamei through the dead, one is unfit and the There it is different, because there is a loss of chullin.12 To other is tamei. So we too admit in the case of terumah this Rabbi Yirmiyah demurred: [Surely] in our Mishnah too which was made tamei through a velad hatumah, that we there is the loss of wood? — Said a certain old man to him: may burn it together with terumah which was made tamei They cared about a substantial loss, but they did not care by an av hatumah. But how can we burn that which is in about a slight loss. (15a – 15b) suspense together with that which is tamei? Perhaps Eliyahu will come and declare it [the former] tahor!8 Bais Rav Assi said in Rabbi Yochanan's name: The controversy maintains that piggul (a sacrifice that one is [only] in respect of the sixth [hour], but in the seventh performed its service with the intention of consuming its all agree that we burn them [together].13 Rabbi Zeira said parts after the time frame allocated by the , and the to Rav Assi: Shall we [then] say that Rabbi Yochanan holds sacrifice is rendered invalid and its parts are required to that our Mishnah treats an av hatumah according to be burned) nossar (meat of a sacrifice that was left over Scripture and a velad hatumah by Rabbinical law, and that beyond its allocated time which must be burned), and what ‘from their words’ means is from the words of Rabbi tamei parts of sacrifices (which also are required to be Chanina, the Segan of the Kohanim?14 — Yes, he replied.15

7 This would be irrelevant if he had not already referred to them. 12 If the terumah is not deliberately made tamei and allowed to 8 How then may we make them tamei with our hands by burning flow into the lower part of the vat. them together? 13 Since they are then Scripturally forbidden, even the tahor 9 The reason for this is that Bais Shammai maintains that terumah is certainly the same as tamei. although piggul and nossar are rabbinically tamei, they are 14 Thus: just as that which is only Rabbinically tamei may be considered tahor biblically, and they cannot be burned together burnt together with what is Scripturally tamei, so in the sixth with meat that became biblically tamei. hour, the terumah of chametz is then only Rabbinically 10 This last portion of the Baraisa dealing with piggul, etc., is forbidden, and may be burnt with tamei terumah which is irrelevant, and is quoted merely in order to complete the Scripturally forbidden. This seems to be Rabbeinu Chananel's Baraisa. interpretation. See Rashi for a different explanation. 11 For the wine in the cask is quite tahor, yet since it is destined 15 According to this interpretation, Rabbi Meir permits one to to be lost we may deliberately make it tamei. burn tahor chametz of terumah along with the tamei from the

- 2 -

Visit us on the web at dafnotes.com or email us at [email protected] to subscribe © Rabbi Avrohom Adler L’zecher Nishmas HaRav Raphael Dov ben HaRav Yosef Yechezkel Marcus O”H

It was stated likewise: Rabbi Yochanan said: Our Mishnah to tumah as a food in the measurement of the volume of refers to an av hatumah according to Scripture and a an egg, and if the bread is terumah, although it is tahor, it derivative tumah by Rabbinical law, and what does ‘from can be burned together with the tamei on the eve of their words’ mean? From the words of Rabbi Chanina, the Pesach.18 — [No]: there it is different because it is merely Segan of the Kohanim; and the controversy is [only] in dust.19 If so,20 what does [they] admit mean?21 — Rabbi respect of the sixth [hour], but in the seventh all agree that Yosi says thus to Rabbi Meir: Even according to Rabbi we burn them together. Yehoshua, who is lenient, he is lenient only in connection with doubtful and tamei [terumah], but not in the case of Shall we say that we can support him: Bais Shammai tahor and tamei. If so, why is it not a true analogy? Surely maintains that piggul, nossar, and tamei parts of sacrifices it is a perfect analogy?22 — Said Rabbi Yirmiyah: Here we (which also are required to be burned) cannot be burned are dealing with a case where meat was made tamei by a together. Bais Hillel, however, maintains that they can be derived tumah refers to meat that was made tamei burned together.16 — There it is different, because they through a liquid that had become tamei through a sheretz. possess tumah by Rabbinical law. For we learned: Piggul Rabbi Meir followed his reasoning and Rabbi Yosi followed and nossar make the hands tamei.17 Shall we say that this his reasoning. Rabbi Meir followed his reasoning for he supports him: Bread that became moldy and cannot be said that the ability of tamei liquids to make other things eaten by a human but can still be eaten by a dog is subject tamei is rabbinic in nature.23 Rabbi Yosi followed his

sixth hour and on, even if the tahor is rabbinically prohibited. 18 The reason one can make it tamei with his own hands is This is because according to Rabbi Meir, one can make terumah because it is not fit for human consumption. The that is prohibited tamei just like one can make tamei terumah assumed that this ruling is proof to Rabbi Yosi, because that is already tamei. Furthermore, according to Rabbi according to Rabbi Meir, one can burn even chametz of terumah Chanina’s testimony that one can add tumah to something that that is tahor that is edible together with tamei. Rabbi Yosi agrees was rabbinically tamei, Rabbi Meir teaches that we can burn that terumah that is tahor that cannot be eaten can be burned tahor chametz of terumah along with the tamei during the sixth on the eve of Pesach with the tamei. The same should thus be hour of the fourteenth of Nissan, when chametz is only true regarding edible terumah that is tahor that it can be burned rabbinically prohibited. One cannot justify burning them with tamei in the seventh hour when it is biblically prohibited. together before the sixth hour when the chametz is still 19 The Gemara rejects this proof because if the food is not fit for permitted. human consumption, then it is not even considered food, and it 16 This dispute between Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel is cited by is equivalent to mere dirt, whereas chametz of terumah still has Rabbi Yosi, and it appears that Rabbi Yosi was inferring from the sanctity but is just forbidden to eat. words of Bais Hillel who maintains that they can be burned 20 That Rabbi Meir learns from Rabbi Chanina. together that piggul and nossar which are biblically prohibited 21 Surely Rabbi Yosi's argument that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi can be burned together with something that is tamei. Yehoshua admit etc., is irrelevant, seeing that Rabbi Meir is not Something that is rabbinically prohibited, however, like tahor concerned with them at all? chametz of terumah in the sixth hour, cannot be burned 22 For in the sixth hour the leaven is Rabbinically forbidden, and together with tamei. This would indicate that Rabbi Yosi agrees on Rabbi Yochanan's view, there is no difference with Rabbi Meir that during the seventh hour when chametz is according to Rabbi Yosi between what is tamei and what is biblically forbidden, tahor chametz of terumah can be burned forbidden for any other reason (since he maintains that in the together with tamei. seventh hour Rabbi Yosi agrees that they may be burnt together 17 The reason piggul and nossar can be burned together with because both are then Scripturally forbidden) and the same tamei is because this burning only adds to their tumah. principle should apply equally to Rabbi Meir. Concerning chametz of terumah that is tahor, however, Rabbi 23 Since Rabbi Chanina’s testimony was said with regard to Yosi may prohibit one to burn it with the tamei even during the burning this meat with biblically tamei meat, Rabbi Meir seventh hour when it is biblically prohibited. inferred that one can burn tahor chametz of terumah along with

- 3 -

Visit us on the web at dafnotes.com or email us at [email protected] to subscribe © Rabbi Avrohom Adler L’zecher Nishmas HaRav Raphael Dov ben HaRav Yosef Yechezkel Marcus O”H

reasoning that the ability of tamei liquids to make other everything in existence how is it possible that something things tamei is biblical in nature.24 For it was taught: ceases to exist? Doubtful [cases of tumah with] fluids, in respect of becoming tamei themselves, are tamei; in respect of Leaving this discussion aside momentarily, there is rendering others tamei, they are tahor; this is Rabbi Meir's certainly a practical lesson from this Gemara. When one view, and thus did Rabbi Elozar too rule as his words. has sinned, instead of continuing to defy his creator, which Rabbi Yehudah said: It is tamei in respect of everything. is akin to chametz, the rising of the dough, one should Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Shimon maintain: In respect of make himself like dirt, as Hashem rests His Presence on eatables, they are tamei; in respect of utensils they are those who are humble and downtrodden. tahor. But does Rabbi Elozar hold that liquid is at all susceptible to tumah, surely it was taught: Rabbi Elozar The same idea can be applied to kares. The Gemara said: Liquids have no tumah at all [by Scriptural law]; the teaches that regarding one who is arrogant, Hashem proof is that Yosi ben Yoezer of Tzereidah testified that the declares, “he and I cannot dwell together.” Certainly one ayal species of locust is tahor [fit for food], and that the who insists on remaining arrogant will be liable kares, i.e. fluids in the [Temple] slaughter-house are tahor.25 Now, he cannot reside together with Hashem, which is defined there is no difficulty according to Shmuel's interpretation by Hashem not resting His Presence on him. Once a person that they are tahor [only] in so far that they cannot render recognizes his unworthiness, he is akin to dirt, and other [objects] tamei, but that nevertheless they are Hashem will rest His Presence on him. tamei in themselves, then it is well; but according to Rav who maintained that they are literally tahor, what can be said? — Said Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak: [He refers] to one [ruling only]. But he states: as his words’, implying that they are many; moreover, he teaches, ‘and thus [etc.]’? That is [indeed] a difficulty. (15b – 16a)

DAILY MASHAL

Lowly Like Dirt

The Gemara states that moldy bread is compared to mere dirt. There is a fascinating discussion regarding kares, excision, whether it is really possible for a soul to get cut off from Hashem. Given the fact that Hashem created

the tamei even during the sixth hour on the fourteenth of terumah along with the tamei. During the sixth hour of Pesach Nissan, when the tahor terumah is rabbinically forbidden. eve however, when chametz is only rabbinically prohibited, one 24 When Rabbi Chanina testified regarding burning meat cannot burn the tahor along with the tamei. together with tamei meat, he was teaching us that one can add 25 Even by Rabbinical law. This postulates that the general tumah tumah to something that was already biblically tamei. During of liquids is Rabbinical only, and it was therefore not imposed in the seventh hour of the eve of Pesach, when chametz is the Temple, so as not to defile the flesh of sacrifices. biblically prohibited, one can burn the chametz of tahor

- 4 -

Visit us on the web at dafnotes.com or email us at [email protected] to subscribe © Rabbi Avrohom Adler L’zecher Nishmas HaRav Raphael Dov ben HaRav Yosef Yechezkel Marcus O”H